From the blog:

"Just as you first must achieve something worthy of boasting, so, too, is the “right” to an opinion earned by correctly identifying facts and then explaining them rationally."

The author asserts that one may only boast after one has achieved something, conflating the act with the justification for the act. This is factually inaccurate, as the ability to do something is not the same as being justified or substantiated in such an action. Justification is a property of comparison between one thing and another, but relies on the things to be there in the first place! It's logically and literally absurd to say that only in justification may the object exist. Justification is a test to see if the object exists, but does not prohibit the postulation of the object in the first place. That a doctoral candidate would make such a simple, rudimentary, and fundamental misstep as that is quite pivotal to me.

The other problem with this statement is the assertion that opinion is "earned" through approbation from another opinion. If one can only become an authority after earning such from another such authority, from whence originates authority at all? It's a circular argument - again logically absurd.

If you want to lend your opinion to the author thinking it substantiates him, you make my point. I'm just going to move on. There is literally nothing to see here.

Social science is valid, and, in fact, is more scientific than physics.

"In sociology, students at all levels are presented with some discussion about whether and how sociology is a science. Physics – especially Newtonian physics – is taken as a kind of standard against which sociology is measured. Actually, a scientific investigation of college textbooks revealed that physics education is deficient in presenting students with the methods and limits of experiment and theory.

"Sir Anthony Giddens’s international standard undergraduate textbook, Sociology, has an entire chapter (number 20) on Research Methods with three explicit discussions of experiment. It begins with two discussions of sociology as a science (pp 7-8; and 12-14).

"Moreover, in sociology, we enjoy some self-criticism in examining the historical development of our field, from Comte (I prefer Spencer), Weber, Durkheim, and Marx, through to Parsons, Merton, and your choice of pop stars of the current generation. Physics students do not understand their science as a historical development. As Kuhn pointed out fifty years ago, physics is presented whole and complete, without development. No wonder they are surprised by a new explanation of a previously unperceived fact." --
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...

So does their politics and apocalyptic ideology posing as science as the movement hysteria has taken on a 'life' of its own.

Dr Stadler and Floyd Ferris. But but while Hansen may have once had the potential, he commits a lot more fallacies than conflating weather with climate. He believes an ideology. It isn't hard, watching the prominent climate hysteria "activist scientists" with their emotional and viciously political submersion, to see that it isn't science regardless of what narrower scientific work they may have otherwise done.

Very common. The educational system teaches it.

I have always held that "social science" is a contradiction in terms."

This is the fallacy of equivocation the author described.

Incredulity in the absence of understanding is one form of the opinion fallacy if it is used as argument. Science has a long history of discovering surprising facts that many were reluctant to believe. Some want to know more, perhaps remaining doubtful, and others insist that it can't be true, based on their own incredulity in a circular argument. (This does not mean everything claimed in the name of science is valid.)

But the forum clowns of record I had in mind are those who refuse to follow and who can't tolerate logical argument as such, rationalizing that in the name of "opinion". They insist in advance that their "opinion" is just as good as anything else. They reject all criticism by claiming their "opinion" is exempt because it is opinion, while hypocritically expecting it to be taken as serious assertion. They loudly announce that rational argument is an attempt to "force" them to "submit". One version of the latter is shrieking (in all capital letters) that reason and fact "shackle" and "enslave" the mind.

Concomitantly, they proclaim that someone else's reasoned argument can be no better than their own opinion and refuse to read or consider it, stating that it (and, in general all philosophy) must a priori by "definition" be "only opinion" and mere "belief", not fact. One version includes stubbornly refusing to even acknowledge what has been said as they misrepresent it in one-liners and denounce it is as self evidently "wordy diarrhea". If you dare to think you know what you are talking about and try to explain it then you are "like a Liberal". It's an ugly, in-the-gutter intellectual nihilism on behalf of subjectivism.

That is all from the record of several posts elsewhere on this forum. Yes they really do that here.

(Imagine Atlas Shrugged reduced to this approach: "This is John Galt speaking. Admittedly this is only opinion, no better than Mr. Thompson's opinion, to which he has every right, so I won't take up much of your time with my verbal diarrhea before his turn. We do want him to be heard again, and again, and again to give his equally valid opinion, which must be valid because he has a right to it... Existence exists, but that's only my opinion; others may opine differently [you fill in the rest] ... And now, back to an equally valid opinion from Mr. Thompson following this brief opinion announcement from Mr. Taggert.")

The fallacy described (along with many others) in the book Crimes Against Logic is in essence a crude attempt to claim a "right to an opinion" as grounds for exemption from logical argument, equivocating between epistemology versus a political right to believe whatever one wants to regardless of the grounds or lack of grounds for it. Hence the terminology "logical crime".

"It isn't a matter of scientific discussion but snake oil salesmanship."
Reality still exists. We can focus on reality or focus on snake oil salesman making climate claims with ever severe weather report. Reality goes on without regard to them.

It isn't a matter of scientific discussion but snake oil salesmanship. Both scientists and non-scientists have nothing but contempt for the "stupid" public they have to sell this to in order to create a demand for spending gobs of money on projects with uncertain outcome. Hansen, the NASA scientist, engages in this shameless twist frequently, and Al Gore unendingly bleats his chicken little warnings of the end of the world with every severe weather report. Whether they themselves believe it or not doesn't matter, if they can convince the true believers who aren't well educated on the difference between weather and climate.

Actually, his PhD is in solid state physics, and he was quite respected in laser optics and infrared jamming technology. He, like many educated liberals, seems to be able to compartmentalize his scientific side dealing in facts, principles, and precise data, from his social science and political touchy feely side.

It was my opinion. ;)

If one can not offer one's criticism of a book as the author claims, one enters into a circular argument state, for the author's opinion then becomes no more valid than my own!

"Perhaps they are the same clowns who employ the fallacy themselves"
Apparently the clowns think argument from personal incredulity is a valid argument but don't want to say so aloud.

Underwater basket weaving does require facts. You must be thinking of a specialty in basket weaving while levitating.

"AGW proponents often jump on the latest severe weather, and claim it's an element of the predicted catastrophic change. When others point to unusual weather that implies a different direction for the climate, the AGW crowd declaims the doubters are confusing weather with climate, apparently oblivious to their own confusion."
Non-scientists confusing weather with climate have nothing to do with this. When it's an unusually hot day or a bad summer storm system, people who don't understand science think it demonstrates climate change. When it's an unusually cold day people who don't understand science think it contradicts climate change. This is silliness. It is a very small long-term trend on top of a huge amount of Gaussian white noise. Moreover these people are often talking about one location on earth. Talking about non-scientsts' misunderstandings is a way to avoid facing the inconvenient answers coming from science.

Who are the clowns who are emotionally voting down logic on an Ayn Rand forum? They don't belong here. Perhaps they are the same clowns who employ the fallacy themselves and who in their irrationalism lash out by mindlessly but systematically 'downvoting' whole sequences of straightforward, perfectly reasonable posts while engaging in outbursts of personal insults and phony accusations. They really don't belong here.

That criticism of the book is patently ridiculous. You missed the whole point.

Actually, I'm going to fundamentally disagree with the very first notion put forth by the author: that the individual does not in fact have the right to an opinion. An opinion is nothing more than an hypothesis seeking confirmation through approbation. It may not be logically based on tested facts, but it is the basis for further exploration of any topic. It is the fundamental expression of thought. To argue that one does not have a "right" to opinion based on one's observation/supposition is ludicrous: does one only have the right opinion when given the okay by someone else? If so, we run into a chicken and egg scenario.

Now I am not equating the existence of an opinion with justification of opinion. I am merely saying that I find the assertion that there exists no fundamental right to the products of one's own mind not only unfounded, but patently ridiculous.

The problem with the proponents of AGW is that so many "punchlines" for selling their position are not founded on credible data. The famous "97%" figure came from a researcher who picked over 3,000 papers that discussed AGW, and a poll he sent to the authors. Only 78 responded, with 76 affirmative, which is closer to 96%, but he rounded it up to 97%. Pick any other scientific, medical, or political stance and try to sell a position globally on the opinion of only 76 people and you get laughed out of the discussion.

The most fervent proponents of AGW have been caught "cooking the books" by overcounting data that supports their position, and discounting any that conflict. When challenged to use data from earlier than the last 100 years, their models fail to predict our current climate status, making their predictions for the future highly suspect.

AGW proponents often jump on the latest severe weather, and claim it's an element of the predicted catastrophic change. When others point to unusual weather that implies a different direction for the climate, the AGW crowd declaims the doubters are confusing weather with climate, apparently oblivious to their own confusion.

The atmosphere of secular theological argument that surrounds the proponents of AGW creates a fog of uncertainty about the credibility of their science. Even the use of the term "denier" is borrowed from shaming people who don't think the holocaust really occurred. The proper description of one that is skeptical about a scientific position is "doubter."

PhD? In what discipline? I have a double PhD in Astrophysics and Radio Astronomy and I always insist on real facts and logical discourse. Anything else is mysticism. What did he get his PhD in? Underwater basket weaving?

I'm reminded of an exchange with my PhD brother in law, who is terribly progressive. He explained why he no longer wanted to discuss politics with me because I was "unfair," insisting on real facts and logical discourse.

+1 I'm impressed.

That would be a short speech for an Ayn Rand character.

"stargazers are not demanding that we give up refrigerating our food"
Yes. And if a climate scientist tells us to give up refrigeration, she is outside her area of expertise. It's like Linus Pauling telling us to take mega doses of vitamin C.

"With the climate, on the other hand, we do have political consequences, laws, ultimately."
That's true. If we argue that those consequences affect reality, something you're not saying, it's a classic case of appeal to consequences.

The long post of ewv. Yes.
' The influence of government money is only part of the problem.'
The effect of $1.5 trillion a year is powerful.
However, the real problem is the way people allow themselves to be manipulated by (false) altruism by using heart over head. Celebrities, politicians and mush-heads in general all want to save the planet.

MM's topic-
the great crime against logic is to either ignore it or to claim logic is inferior to emotional claptrap.